It's funny how talented teams seem to have more 'attitude'. The way I see it, bring in more talent and the attitude comes with it. The desired "attitude" is often a part of a great players game.

Remember when we needed a RB and Ted decided not to bring in Marshawn Lynch? How dumb was that? Huge blow to the team from an attitude standpoint.

I know we won the SB with Starks coming in late in the year, but I recall Woodson being pretty disappointed. I am sure Rodgers was too. Just think how differently last season might have been. We may have won back to back SBs... and may have been vying for a 3-peat.

Remember when we needed a RB and Ted decided not to bring in Marshawn Lynch? How dumb was that? Huge blow to the team from an attitude standpoint.

I know we won the SB with Starks coming in late in the year, but I recall Woodson being pretty disappointed. I am sure Rodgers was too. Just think how differently last season might have been. We may have won back to back SBs... and may have been vying for a 3-peat.

As long as the Packers would be willing to lose whatever player/players Lynch's long-term deal would inevitably cause. The net effect could easily do more harm than good in the long-term. Besides, Lynch's impact wouldn't have been nearly the same behind this offensive line and in this scheme. More importantly than anything else, this team needs a better offensive line and more disciplined coaching. The way things are now, a super star RB would only minimally improve the team, imo.

Remember when we needed a RB and Ted decided not to bring in Marshawn Lynch? How dumb was that? Huge blow to the team from an attitude standpoint.

I know we won the SB with Starks coming in late in the year, but I recall Woodson being pretty disappointed. I am sure Rodgers was too. Just think how differently last season might have been. We may have won back to back SBs... and may have been vying for a 3-peat.

The Packers and Seahawks offered the same round pick, however, the Bills felt the Seahawks pick would be higher (the Packers were going to finish with a better record) so they took the Seahawks pick. Did they offer the Packers a chance to trump the 4th round with a 3rd? I can't remember, but even though I liked Lynch, I didn't think he was worth a 3rd.

The Bills got a 2011 fourth-round pick and a 2012 conditional pick. That means to trump the Bills, the Packers would have had to give up their 3rd round pick, Alex Green. Then you got the 2012 conditional pick, which I believe turned out to be a 5th round selection. I'm not going to go through all of those steps, because you should have the point by now, lol.

The Packers do not need an elite running back (Paul would be proud) to win games. They need a back who is pass protection sure, is average or above at receiving and can average 4 yards a carry without ever fumbling the ball. Does this sound like someone on the roster already? DuJuan Harris and he didn't cost the Packers a draft pick.

btw, that year you're talking about the Packers needing a running back ... who won the Super Bowl that year?

Towards the end of our year the running game was fine. It was used less against the 49ers and Vikings in the metrodome cause our D could t make stops and we were in chase mode. We could have stuck with the running game more vs the 49ers. But when we had the lead or a close game we were running the ball just fine.

Towards the end of our year the running game was fine. It was used less against the 49ers and Vikings in the metrodome cause our D could t make stops and we were in chase mode. We could have stuck with the running game more vs the 49ers. But when we had the lead or a close game we were running the ball just fine.

This is a McCarthy issue. We didn't run in these games not because we were in chase mode. We were never in a position where we had to throw until the very end. McCarthy just brain farts and quits running the ball.

SF, we came out of the 1/2 down by 3. had two series, both with 2 runs each and ended up with a tie after Crosby FG. SF came back and scored and we went into the McCarthy Zone. Not a single run after that, and all but two of the offensive snaps from the shotgun.

This is a McCarthy issue. We didn't run in these games not because we were in chase mode. We were never in a position where we had to throw until the very end. McCarthy just brain farts and quits running the ball.

SF, we came out of the 1/2 down by 3. had two series, both with 2 runs each and ended up with a tie after Crosby FG. SF came back and scored and we went into the McCarthy Zone. Not a single run after that, and all but two of the offensive snaps from the shotgun.

Not only that, but the Packers hardly even had a RB on the freakin' field for the entire second half! Yes, I know Cobb was in the backfield sometimes and got a few carries, but I'm sure they 49'er's were willing to concede the limited production he offered. So not only did they not even try to run the ball despite decent success in the 1st quarter, McCarthy essentially removed any remote THREAT of a running game for an entire half. Incredible, and very bad coaching, imo.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.